Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: Drew68

ROTFLMAO!

Preach it, bro.


501 posted on 03/09/2013 2:55:17 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

“At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..oh sure, some individual states still adhered to it. That was the only law they knew and there was no central government in place yet...”

No. We are still a common law country. That is why court cases matter. Our common law began to diverge from Great Britain with independence, but we were and remain a common law country.

“Being a sovereign nation, our new government looked to international law.”

Nope. On the matter of citizenship, we have always been a ‘birth in the US’ sort of place. The losers in the WKA case argued that a century of common law should have been overturned and that the US should use roman law as its basis, and that idea was laughed out of court.


502 posted on 03/09/2013 2:55:59 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
All “Natural Born Citizen” means is that you became a Citizen at the moment of birth, based on the laws in effect at the time of your birth. NOTHING ELSE.

And if Kansas58 knew what the f*** he was talking about, he could explain why Aldo Mario Bellei was born a citizen of the United States, yet had his citizenship stripped away because he didn't live here.

Obviously a natural born citizen couldn't have his citizenship stripped away for failing to live here, so it pretty much demonstrates that being born a citizen is not the same thing as being a "natural born citizen."

503 posted on 03/09/2013 2:56:06 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Correction. We have a lot. You just don't like it because it contradicts your own personal preference.

I started this with NO personal preference at all. It would have been fine by me if the Framers had said "nobody but people born on US soil of citizen parents."

But that's not what they said.

In any event, you're right... sort of.

I DON'T like your interminable birther nonsense, because it DOES contradict my own personal preference, which is to respect the Founding Fathers and the Constitution that THEY wrote.

Not you. The FOUNDING FATHERS.

504 posted on 03/09/2013 2:57:47 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: old republic

In my opinion, if Cruz’s parents were both US citizens at the time of his birth, and if they had both resided at some point within the US, then Cruz would likely be a “natural born citizen under the original intent of the US Constitution.

************

Just a little info regarding Cruz, his parents and their divorce.

Rafael Cruz came to the US fleeing from Cuba in 1957. Landed in Austin Tx worked and got a degree from UT, met and married Cruz’s mother. They moved to Canada where Ted Cruz was born and resided nearing his fourth birthday when his mother and he moved back to Houston. His parents were separated but not divorced at that time. They reunited and divorced later. Rafael Cruz became a US citizen in 2005. He currently is a pastor in the North Dallas area but I can’t tell you which church.

Here are a some Cruz articles from various print media of which many wash the same info over.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120428-senate-candidate-ted-cruz-aims-to-pick-up-mantle-of-reagan.ece

http://www.texastribune.org/2012/08/13/texplainer-could-canadian-born-ted-cruz-be-preside/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-is-ted-cruz/2012/08/01/gJQAqql8OX_blog.html


505 posted on 03/09/2013 2:59:48 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.”

The US Supreme Court spent half of the WKA decision showing that NBC = NBS. It made it excruciatingly clear that those born of alien parents were still natural born citizens.

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

Repeat: “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”


506 posted on 03/09/2013 3:00:05 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

You speak for yourself, and very few others.

You have not one single, noted legal authority to back up your claims.

Not a single conservative leader agrees with you.

Not a single Member of Congress agrees with you.

Not a single Judge agrees with you.

You have misinterpreted the law and history.


507 posted on 03/09/2013 3:00:53 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I don’t believe the Founders were stupid at all.

So you think they would have approved of birth tourism?

If you believe that, then it isn't the founder's stupidity I would be concerned with.

508 posted on 03/09/2013 3:01:57 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Exactly Jeff. We are adhering the Constitution, yet mocked because we refuse to buy this birther nonsense.

They are now fighting a battle against their own because they don’t like the fact Obama was elected.


509 posted on 03/09/2013 3:02:11 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You have not one living legal authority on your side.

NO judge
NO conservative leader
No immigration attorney
NO Member of Congress


510 posted on 03/09/2013 3:02:31 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You use the word "tolerated" as applied to freedom of speech and you have the nerve to tell *US* what is the meaning of Constitutional terms? You are a piece of work.

Oh.. and as far as using the word "tolerated" goes, yes, I said it, and I'll say it again.

Those who run public forums, in my opinion, should have stopped tolerating the birther nonsense after it became clear how much nonsense they were putting out. Because it is absolute nonsense, it undermines the Constitution, and it makes conservatives look bad. It makes us look like a bunch of conspiracy kooks who can't even read a court case accurately.

Actually, those who run quite a few public forums did make that decision. RedState won't tolerate birthers. Mark Levin won't tolerate birthers. Rush Limbaugh won't tolerate birthers.

511 posted on 03/09/2013 3:02:35 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You have already lost this fight.
You know you have lost it.
NOBODY in any position of authority gives your point of view any weight at all.
You are on the lunatic fringe.


512 posted on 03/09/2013 3:03:51 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest
Jeff - just post the “writers” name. Why are you playing keep a way with the authors name?

Because I want agreement on the principles.

513 posted on 03/09/2013 3:03:54 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: GBA
But running him for POTUS will be divisive for the party that runs him, since those who like him but like the Constitution more won't vote for him and the other half of the country never would vote for him any way.

You seriously overestimate how significant the birther demographic is. It's tiny and not statistically significant when it comes to actual voting. If Ted Cruz runs for President in a general election, it isn't going to make that much difference if birthers pout and stay home. Yes, every vote counts. But big picture, birtherism is a pretty fringe movement. Unless Cruz were to run in defiance of some future court decision that declared him ineligible, the extent to which people would actually vote on this issue is likely so small as to not be measurable.

514 posted on 03/09/2013 3:05:04 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
There it is, clear as a blue-sky day. NBC is the counterpart to citizen at birth. Cruz satisfies the condition as his mother was a US citizen at his birth. It's not that hard to grasp.

No, it isn't hard to grasp, but you certainly need more information than you currently have to grasp it properly.

Cruz is exactly like Aldo Mario Bellei. Had he remained outside of the United States, he could have had his citizenship stripped from him, exactly the way Aldo Mario Bellei had his citizenship stripped from him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei

Do you think a "natural born citizen" could have his citizenship stripped away for not living here?

No? There's the difference.

515 posted on 03/09/2013 3:05:24 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
"That is EXACTLY. DAMN. RIGHT."

There is nothing that Mr. Rogers says that is "Exactly. Damn. Right."

He shares that trait with you.

516 posted on 03/09/2013 3:06:55 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Kansas58

“I really want to know if Judges are always right!”

Well, as a practical matter, when all 50 states, and all 535 members of Congress, and every DA and every court in the country agree on something, then it is safe to say that is the official position of the US government.

Has Utah, or Arizona, or Alabama or Oklahoma banned Obama from the ballot? Nope. Has a single DA anywhere taken up the birther cause? Nope. You’re batting 0/535 in Congress. In hundreds of cases, you’ve never won at any level.

If you cannot convince a single state out of 50 to take up your standard, your views just are not shared by many people...


517 posted on 03/09/2013 3:10:31 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Wait, didn’t you just mock the Supreme Court for ruling that blacks were property. Now you cite some obscure case that does not define “natural born citizen.”

It’s all conjecture.

NO COURT IN THE LAND WOULD RULE CRUZ OR RUBIO INELIGIBLE.


518 posted on 03/09/2013 3:11:52 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
How come the federal judiciary keeps refusing to make findings of fact and decisions regarding Obama's qualifications? Do you think that they agree with those of you who think it's their job to review candidate qualifications but "they just can't find the time" to get to a little case like this one?

Or, do you think it's possible that they agree with me that they have no role to play in the selection of our presidents?

The Constitution makes it clear that our presidents are to be selected by the electors.

If you think the electors made a mistake (which is possible), then there are procedures for impeachment. The House of Representatives (not any court) has the "sole" power of impeachment. And, if you think that the House is making a mistake in not impeaching a president, what then? Shouldn't you be able to go to court and have a judge order the House to impeach? Why, of course. We can't permit the House to make (in your judgment) a mistake when it's their duty to impeach, can we? Isn't it the Supreme Court's job to make sure no one in this country makes any mistaken decisions?

There's another case for Orly. Take the Congress to court!!! And, if the Supreme Court refuses to correct the House's mistake, then take the Supreme Court to court. Since Orly might have a conflict, we could hire Larry Klayman for that case.

Please, listen to what the judiciary is trying to tell you folks. It's not their job to pick or remove presidents.

519 posted on 03/09/2013 3:12:18 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“If you want someone to read your message, post it in small enough pieces that people won’t just skip the entire thing as I just did.”

You won’t ever read it anyways, because you know it says you are wrong. But I post it for those who are willing to think, and learn, and find out what the courts have already written...


520 posted on 03/09/2013 3:13:10 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You are simply wrong. There are only two forms of Citizenship, in the United States: 1.) Natural Born 2.) Naturalized The only intent of the Founders was to make sure that Naturalized Citizens could not become President. If you became a Citizen at the moment of birth, you are, by definition, a Natural Born Citizen. No legal expert in the entire country disagrees with me on this point.

According to Kansas58, here is a picture of our next American President.

He isn't an American yet, but he will be by the time he gets here.

521 posted on 03/09/2013 3:14:29 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
5. When did such a ready convenient status of being called an American citizen regardless of birth begin ???

5. 1952. Immigration and Nationalization Act, Section 301(g)

It started in 1952? How did they get it into the 1787 US Constitution? Time machine?

522 posted on 03/09/2013 3:17:07 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

You imply there already is already a definition of ‘natural’, in the context of birth I assume. What references do you use as there appears to many takes on what the term means.


523 posted on 03/09/2013 3:18:09 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You’re right. I definitely see the plausibility of someone living in China his whole life after being born in one of those “California maternity hotels”, then moving to the United States and immediately running for President.


524 posted on 03/09/2013 3:18:35 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The reason nobody wants to touch the issue is for fear of being labeled a racist since Obama is black. They fear it would be a career ender.


525 posted on 03/09/2013 3:19:00 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Has Ted Cruz ever said he wanted to run for President? Why is this an issue?


526 posted on 03/09/2013 3:21:18 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
He is quoted sixteen times more often by the Founding Fathers than Vattel. And he uses ALL of the words “piracy,” “felony,” and “high seas,” not one of which are ever used by Vattel in his book.

You talk much, yet source nothing. The put up or shut up window is now closed.

Have a nice day.

527 posted on 03/09/2013 3:22:45 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Also, those who think being born abroad to a U.S. parent automatically confers Natural Born status are sadly mistaken.

They obviously don't know anything about the 1971 ruling by the SCOTUS in Rogers vs. Bellei:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=401&invol=815

"Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing [401 U.S. 815, 830] rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

4. The Court has recognized the existence of this power. It has observed, "No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with . . . ." United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 475 (1917). See United States v. Ness, 245 U.S. 319 (1917); Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (1928). And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress [401 U.S. 815, 831] responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S., at 311 . But more than 50 years had expired during which, because of the withholding of that benefit by Congress, citizenship by such descent was not bestowed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 673 -674. Then, too, the Court has recognized that until the 1934 Act the transmission of citizenship to one born abroad was restricted to the child of a qualifying American father, and withheld completely from the child of a United States citizen mother and an alien father. Montana v. Kennedy, supra.

Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei [a child born abroad] and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.

Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Court's specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations.

VI

This takes us, then, to the issue of the constitutionality of the exercise of that congressional power when it is used to impose the condition subsequent that confronted plaintiff Bellei. We conclude that its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful, and that it withstands the present constitutional challenge."


Ergo, if Congress has the Constitutional powers to place limits and qualifiers onto a Child Born Abroad's citizenship status, then it obviously doesn't follow a Natural law---of which, Congress cannot bestow and cannot take away through legislation.

Just my twenty bucks worth.

Cheers!
528 posted on 03/09/2013 3:23:24 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Our country is burning and ‘conservatives’ are arguing about irrelevant minutia.

Our arguing will not halt or accelerate the burning. We are arguing for the same reason we are burning. People have become too stupid to govern themselves. I dare say, had my side been able to convince the denser members of the public, we might not now be burning so strongly.

Ted Cruz is more of an American then 90% of the people already in Congress or the Executive Branch. We’re lucky to have him as a Senator and would be even more fortunate to have him as President.

He might make a fine President. But if his citizenship can be stripped away, he can't be a natural born citizen. As he is in exactly the same situation as Aldo Mario Bellei, (Born in foreign country to American mother and foreign father.) and as Bellei's citizenship WAS stripped, he cannot be considered a "natural born citizen."

Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei

Now you might not like the fact that he is not a natural born citizen, but you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with reality.

529 posted on 03/09/2013 3:24:25 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

We do not operate under English common law. ENGLISH common law. Which is what I said and you ignored. I have read enough about the early history of the country to know that the individual states did maintain some of the English common laws, but that the Federal government looked to international law. Common law and English common law are not identical.

On the matter of citizenship, most countries recognize some level of “birth on the soil”, it is how dual citizenship came about. Roman law was referenced, as was English, as was French, etc. The US did not just adhere to English common law after winning it’s independence. It’s common to look to long established laws of other nations and incorporate them.

If ‘birth on the soil” was be all end all, why did the US have to pass so many Acts regarding citizenship?


530 posted on 03/09/2013 3:25:55 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

No, the reason no one touches it is because the courts decided it over 100 years ago. The first major case was Lynch in 1844, and the last was WKA in 1898. Since then, there has been no doubt about those born in the US of alien parents.

Cruz is actually in a grey area. The courts have never tried to decide if someone born overseas to US parents was a NBC. Traditionally, they have been considered NBCs, but there has never been a need for a formal ruling.

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) arguably creates a third case of citizenship, for those born US citizens by being born abroad to US citizens - as was Cruz. (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html)

My guess is that if it came to court, the courts would reject Rogers v Bellei and argue Cruz was qualified as a NBC...but I will grant it is an area in dispute.


531 posted on 03/09/2013 3:28:08 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

For Everyone’s Information:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.


532 posted on 03/09/2013 3:28:17 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

We do not CURRENTLY operate under English common law, because we have been separated from England since 1776. However, the common law of the early US followed English common law until our own started taking shape. And the meanings of legal terms used in the late 1700s pretty much ALL come from English common law. In the 1780s, there was no legal language apart from English common law.


533 posted on 03/09/2013 3:31:07 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

It’s strange. You mock the Supreme Court by mentioning how a particular Court ruled that blacks were property. Then you precede to cite one of the most liberal Courts in history, the same court that brought us Roe V Wade, to make your point.

Bravo!!!


534 posted on 03/09/2013 3:31:43 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Vattel’s Law of Nations is not United States Law, which I quote.

My point is simple. "Natural born citizen" is either based on Vattel or it is not. If it is, then Vattel's definition for the children of service members applies.

You can either have Vattel, or you cannot. You can't have half Vattel, and Half English Common law.

535 posted on 03/09/2013 3:32:08 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
You may well be right about that. Cruz has shown himself to be a remarkably intelligent and capable human being and likely will generate a devoted following. I know I will donate to him again.

I won't vote for him for VP or President, though. How many more feel like that? Don't know, but I do know that these sorts of threads go on for a lot of posts and the passion about this issue runs very hot. Many have sworn an oath to uphold their understanding of what the Constitution and being Constitutional means.

If you want them to turn on you and work with passion against you, then by all means, run the Cruz/Rubio ticket or vice versa.

Until this issue is decided, as fit and fine as you or I and anyone else may believe them to be for the job, choosing that ticket will be a very divisive within and against those who contribute much of the passionate heart and soul of the party.

Romney didn't inspire them and he lost. What do think pissing them off will do? Why try to find out unless division is what you want? I'm sure there are others who are just as fit and fine for the job and don't bring this division with them.

536 posted on 03/09/2013 3:34:11 PM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

LOL! You were reading my mind! (See my comment #528, right before yours).

Cheers!


537 posted on 03/09/2013 3:40:00 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Our own started taking shape after The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 was signed.

So, if you insist that we did indeed operate under ENGLISH common law for many many years, please cite the sources which support this. Please tell us when we finally did fully cast off the laws of England to live under the US law?


538 posted on 03/09/2013 3:43:11 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

LOL! Did you actually read the graphic?


539 posted on 03/09/2013 3:45:00 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Well according even to the birthers, Chester A Arthur doesn’t fit your requirements.

What the h*** are you talking about? Chester A Arthur is the only one before Obama that DOESN'T fit the requirements, but this fact was not discovered until just a few years ago?

Free Republic seems to have a lot of constitutional scholars who never studied constitutional law. Every Con Law Professor I’ve asked regarding this birther issue has found it to be completely preposterous.

Look, I don't know how smart you are, or how knowledgeable, but the argument that something isn't so because someone else says so is a very old fallacy known as "argumentum ad verecundiam." It's so old it even has a Latin name.

It basically means you can't prove something just by claiming that someone else says so. Authorities are often wrong.

I will further point out, that Constitutional Scholars do not spend any time looking at this topic. It is for them, an inconsequential topic. They merely adopted the common fallacious wisdom on this point. But if for some reason, you feel an emotional need to have constitutional scholars tell you something before you believe it, I have left a big list of Constitutional scholars on Free Republic which support the Vattel definition of natural born citizen.

Here's a link if you want to read some opinions of constitutional scholars.

Additionally, Mark Levin, one of the only national pundits who has a strong knowledge of the Constitution, also believes Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally eligible.

As Cruz is in EXACTLY the same situation as Aldo Mario Bellei, No doubt Mark Levin would regard Aldo Bellei as constitutionally eligible as well, despite the fact that the Supreme court stripped him of his citizenship.

How can someone who loses their citizenship be a "natural born citizen?"

540 posted on 03/09/2013 3:46:12 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
The reason nobody wants to touch the issue is for fear of being labeled a racist since Obama is black. They fear it would be a career ender.

No, the reason nobody "wants to touch the issue" is that it has no basis in history or law. It's that simple.

No. Basis. In. History. Or. Law.

Period.

541 posted on 03/09/2013 3:51:25 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
Well, actually you have not pointed to any case law. Even Scalia and Thomas, who are the strongest originalist on the Court, would disregard your definition of “natural born citizen.”

Oh, i've pointed to case law. I've been pointing to it for the last two years. You just haven't read any of my posts regarding it. If you will scan up thread a bit, you will find me referencing Minor v Happersett.

If you want more case law, i'll give you more case law, but I am currently pressed for time, and will likely have to abandon this discussion presently.

Here's a real quick one though. (Not the most prominent, but quite clear.)

Ex Parte Reynolds.

Read what the judge said.

542 posted on 03/09/2013 3:53:57 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
You talk much, yet source nothing. The put up or shut up window is now closed.

Have a nice day.

Running away, are you?

So here we have as much as an admission from you: It doesn't matter one damn bit what the facts are, does it?

It doesn't matter whether everything I said is true (and it is). You will still go on believing that the Constitution talks about Vattel even though I have darn good evidence that it doesn't.

After all, that's exactly what you're saying, isn't it?

543 posted on 03/09/2013 3:54:39 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Again, I read that entire document and this is addressing U.S. citizenship of the children of non-U.S. citizens born on U.S facilities or for that matter in international waters, on U.S. owned vessels, etc. and not those of U.S. citizens living or serving in the military or in the diplomatic service abroad.

And yet you still don't understand the purpose of Consular Affairs as defined within the Foreign Affairs manual published by the State Department. You say red is green until you're blue in the face. That doesn't make it so.

Read the links I provided in my previous posts about U.S. citizenship of the children of U.S. citizen parents living or serving abroad and get back to me.

No, but I will quote to you what the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual says about those children.

7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents

7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

d.(Skip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.


544 posted on 03/09/2013 3:55:03 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you, Nana. Obama had ONE (under=aged) parent who was an American citizen. No one has challenged the Punk’s eligibility successfully. Case closed. To me, this argument borders on the absurd. It’s no wonder that we conservatives can’t get our act together enough even to defeat a radical, anti-American Communist.
If Cruz wins the nomination, it would be disgraceful if a single patriot refused to vote for him, and thus allow the next putrid Marxist to win. Bob


545 posted on 03/09/2013 3:55:55 PM PST by alstewartfan ("You looked like a still From Cecil B DeMille When I saw you Waiting at my door." Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

First:

If you think Fox News is “conservative”...you are not a conservative

Second:

If you still refuse to discuss openly and rationally about Obama Eligibility....you are an Obama Supporter

Fact is Ted Cruz is not eligible as he was born in Canada. You have to be born on American soil to be natural born.

The Democrats will hammer Cruz on his eligibility if he runs for President. Guaranteed. You are a Low Information Voter if you think otherwise


546 posted on 03/09/2013 3:56:03 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

But “nobody but people born on US soil of citizen parents” is exactly what “natural born citizen” meant at the time they wrote the Constitution.


547 posted on 03/09/2013 3:56:22 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Are you saying that the wrinkled, aged document that we all saw right here on FreeRepublic, recording the facts of the birth of John McCain is as phony as....well...Obama's?

Yes. John McCain did NOT release his birth certificate. If you saw a John McCain birth certificate, IT.IS.A.FAKE!!!!

At one time, I could show you the birth certificate it was copied from, but I simply no longer have the time to look that stuff up.

548 posted on 03/09/2013 3:57:23 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

We operated under English common law while ours formed. Common law refers to laws derived from court decisions, and we initially had almost none.

For the purposes of this debate, English common law gave meanings to the terms used in the Constitution. Thus:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”


549 posted on 03/09/2013 4:00:25 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Mr Rogers
"I don’t believe the Founders were stupid at all."

So you think they would have approved of birth tourism?
Whether they would have approved of it or not is completely irrelevant. They didn't put anything in the Constitution to prevent it.

They couldn't have foreseen the rise in transportation technology that made such a thing possible. But the proper response to such a situation is to amend the Constitution, not pretend that it says something it does not.
550 posted on 03/09/2013 4:02:06 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson